Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Is FM support 'official' now?
Re: Is FM support 'official' now?
From: Mike Holden <rockbox_at_mikeholden.uklinux.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:46:41 -0000 (GMT)
Daniel Stenberg said:
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Mike Holden wrote:
>> we should be making more noise about this on the website now. Maybe a
>> new News item on the homepage, and a note explaining the current
>> status on the Download page.
> I've added a main news item on the front page now, and I removed the
> alarming text on the daily-build page. Should appear soon.
>> Also, would there be any mileage in backporting the FM fixes into the
>> current 1.4 branch (I assume it was tagged for release in CVS?)
> I had a quick word with Björn about it, and we both agree that it would
> be a bit of an overkill (but yes, it is tagged with "v1_4"). The
> daily-build version is better than 1.4 in *every* aspect. Let's instead
> try to get the 2.0 out the door soon. Of course, you may do whatever you
> want with your time and engergy! ;-)
I agree with you actually, especially if 2.0 is going to be sooner rather
than later. However I know there have been statements recently that 2.0
was getting pushed back, and the feature freeze "thawed", so maybe that is
the driving force here. If 2.0 is likely within, say, a month or so, then
backporting is probably a waste of "engergy" ;-) (the port is probably not
too onerous, but testing probably would be, especially if the code changed
a lot between 1.4 and the current day). However I think that if 2.0 is not
going to happen within say 3 months, then maybe it is worthwhile to put
the effort into a backport?
I am assuming of course that if a backport is done, then the only changes
would be the half-dozen or so patches that have gone in over the last 2 or
3 weeks, to handle power and backlight etc. If there is other stuff that
has gone into the daily builds since the release of 1.4 (4 months ago!)
that are needed, then it may be a non-starter anyway!
Received on 2003-02-17